xcurt

I think this is the key point. It is much less of an issue with KQT opposite xx than KQTx opposite xxxx or something, but the main point is what would someone do with AJ tight. They'd win the A 100% of the time (absent some side suit issues). Therefore when they win the A on the first round it makes it more likely they have the J, or some such. There is a BM2000 deal about this (KQT in general) in the B problem sets. The probability is dominated by what they would do (in practice) with the A and not the J because there are just so many more Ax(x(..)) combinations that the lone AJ tight. But it is true that the Nash equilibrium, in a vacuum, is what Suit Play is spitting out, by wafer thin margin. AJ tight (a specific 6-2 break) is slightly more likely than stiff A (a specific 7-1 break) by the wide margin of 0.30% to 0.18% and if the defender starts winning the ace from ace-empty, you can switch your play to start finessing and gain more from the ace-empty cases than you lose from the AJ case.

Of course not, it was a rhetorical question. All the theory in this thread is very nice, but poor partner is totally endplayed in the auction after a jump to 4♥ if he has my example hand or something like it that makes a slam. He's going to scatter the missing honors and most of the ways to deal them involve dealing you a club honor and not one of the pointed suit honors (in fact, assuming he holds my example hand, you hold the only way to hold 5 of the 7 missing non-jack honors -- ♠AQ, ♦AKQ, ♣KQ that makes slam good). That's why I'm opting for cheaper, but admittedly more ambiguous 3♥ call.

Are you bidding again after 1D-1H-1S-2H 4H-P-4S-P ? Curt

Given that ♠Kxxxx and the ♣A is a slam (with running diamonds or 2-2 trumps or a sixth spade), I think I would choose 3♥ even if it's not the best description. We are going to need to make two moves with this hand. We can't really expect partner to be thinking of slam with Kxxxx, Jxx, Jxx, Ax.

Well at least you and I read the vulnerability correctly. :rolleyes:

I dont see why you would assume partner has QTxxx of hearts. Partner having long hearts is far worse for the defense than anything else, giving him 5 hearts as the basis of your analysis for our offensive and defensive potential will bias your results a lot, and I don't see any real reason for that. I was assuming he does not have 5 hearts. We need him to not have 5 hearts (for obvious reasons), which means we need cover cards for the ♦xxx, ♣xx (or RHO has 6 tricks in spades), which means 3NT is often making.

I would bet heavily on that, who wouldn't? I thought the point of bidding 1N is because you might have a game and probably won't get 800. edit: Also as far as I know 100 beats 90! Well yes, I was on my iphone and didn't want to tap out that there is some vigorish if we can make exactly 1NT and beat 1S exactly 1. I'm not sure how likely that is. I think there is almost no chance of 800, that's us making 4♠. RHO purports to have an opening hand with at least 4-5 HCP outside of spades, depending on opening style. We're looking at ♥AKx and the one offsuit partner is most likely to hold is hearts. If the minor suit honors are scattered then they will be making some tricks with them. In this scenario, the only way for me to get rid of my minor suit losers (at spades) is to throw them on partner's hearts, but if partner has a good heart suit, then we definitely need +300 because we will have at least 110 in hearts on. Edit -- as for their prospects of avoiding 300 in 1♠x, again, for the analysis we should be assuming partner doesn't have ♥QTxxx or so. If partner has the stiff spade, then they make 3 or 4 spade tricks (most likely 4 spade tricks) on power so need 2-3 tricks from the offsuits. If partner can cover 4 of my 5 minor suit spot cards then we are pretty close to 3NT (x, QTxx, AKxx, AQJx) with all the defensive strength in one hand, which isn't good for their chances. So while I can see constructions where the tricks divide up such that passing 1♠x is optimal, I think we are aiming at a 1-total-trick wide window (and possibly specific divisions of the tricks within that window) if we do so. Since I like to think I bid them and play them better than the average field bear, I don't want to risk the entire board on passing right now.

1nt and i dont think it is close. passing is betting we can make 2s at these colors

I would have bid spades on the second round. That way I could double again on the third round giving partner the option of pass 3♣x, 3♦, and 3♥. As it is I think I have to pass now since 3♠ is so committal (sick might be a better description on KT9xx) and If I double I think partner will imagine something more in the way of a really big balanced hand with ♣xx or so. I'm not looking forward to the decision he makes if I double 3♣. We're not likely to be killing 3♣ if he's passing by default, and they aren't vulnerable.

Agree with the general sentiment expressed by the OP. One issue I see frequently in NABC appeals casebooks, at least when playing behind screens is: some call was explained by south to west as x, and the call was explained by north to east as y, and ew have some agreement such that the sense of their next calls over x is the opposite of the sense over y It seems to me that the rules create an incentive to make such agreements, so I would go a little further than Fred and say that pairs playing "highly complex methods" (also deliberately undefined) accept the risk of the above scenario in auctions that are not "basic auctions" (also in the spirit of the OP).* * For those with a bent toward information theory, communications, and coding, I'm saying that robustness is an important attribute of a bridge bidding system. This theme occurs fairly often in the forums with the usual suspects arguing that a certain call must be artificial because there is no hand that would bid that way, naturally.

Having bid 1NT, after my RHO doubled I would bid 2♥. On the actual hand this looks like -1, or, more likely, the opponents playing 2♠. And everyone would overcall 1♥ at the table, saying anything else is resulting.

OK, serious question. What about 2S showing exactly 5S, and either unbalanced, or suitish 5332 any doubleton. In response to the asking bid, opener would have a way to show the suitish 5332. Is this GCC ok? Basically the idea here is that playing Eastern Scientific, you're going to end up in 2S most of the time anyway, and this way you can play a majors-always-first Canape strong club with 1D=4+ diamonds unbalanced. Also, you aren't forced to open 1NT on Axxxx, KQx, Axx, xx, which I think is terribly losing bridge even if your system says you open 1NT on 5M332 11+-14.

I would say * Analyze after each session. Play less, analyze more. Look at the recap, figure out why you got a poor score on some boards, and ask what you could have done. This is one good thing about pairs. Playing teams you might have lost IMPs solely because of the other table result. * Don't give up on hands when you don't have good cards or it looks like you might have nothing important to do. * If you find you're playing to avoid losing the postmortem, you need a new partner. Also see next point. * Become a better partner. This is a social skill, not a bridge skill, but it affects your bridge scores and it's worth doing. Finally, don't think you can't improve. Sorry JLall, I have to disagree a little, while I think to become WC you need to have started young, when you're talking about the difference between an average club player and solid Flight A player, there are just so many areas where he or she can do better and get better scores, so that player does not need to do everything nearly optimally to get a big improvement.

Do not agree with TimG. Partner has spades. He also has 4♦ available as a good club raise which is also a cheaper call.

Both opponents should have bid out, but it's harder for opener on the actual hand, since he needs redouble to be a running noise instead of "let's punish the opponents." 1NT by the opponents would have made or been down 1 in practice.

You're right that 4333 is not a bad NT shape. This has been proven in earlier DD simulations. Let's assume an invitational hand. What exactly is the range of an invitational hand isn't important, adjust it up or down a little depending on style and range for 1NT. Where I think you need to start adjusting is if you have suitish honor holdings and 4333. If you have suitish honor holdings, and, say, 4324 shape, you have two ways to win by inviting -- either you find a suit fit and now your hand is better, or you don't find a suit fit and partner rates to have some length in your shorter suits. If you can only invite in one strain, you don't get the vigorish that your hand might improve after an invite, so you should only invite if your expectation of playing 2NT facing a minimum or 3NT facing a maximum is greater than your expectation playing 1NT, plus a little bit for the digit that you might collect if LHO balances unwisely.

Matchpoints, protect the plus. Also, we are playing in spades, and partner is playing it. There is nothing positional about our hand.

I understand your action, since the IMP table seems to be in your favor, but who were your opponents? I can understand pass winning if they don't know the IMP odds say to run away from 1mx if unsure on this and related auctions. If they are smart enough to bid out with, eg, 3415 4-counts as responder, or to redouble or bid out as opener without a playing hand for diamonds, then the odds of this scenario drop precipitously and you're left with just the loss hands. If partner really had 21 balanced, and opener had a weak NT, then responder probably had 5-7 with diamond shortness, and he really should have bid.

Thank you Andy.

OK I seriously was not sure about this one: xxx, AJ98, AQx, Kxx, XIMPs, nobody vul, 4th seat P-P-1C-P 1D-P-P-? What now, or did you act on the previous round?

I would take out. Having bid 4♣ the first time, I think we can now bid 4NT not 5NT, nothing precludes us from raising and we might learn something more about the hand. Having doubled the first time, assuming LHO still bids 4♠, 4NT is probably natural. I probably have to bid 5NT now. I still get the main upside of my plan, which is finding out if partner has 4 hearts. Unfortunately I'm going to find that out at the 6 level. I'm still on the fence on whether or not to raise to grand if partner bids 6♥ over my 5NT. In the Leaping Michaels auction the 4♠ call is more likely be concealing a partial diamond fit than here, where it might be ♠KQJTxxxx and out. I need 7 red cards including at least 4 hearts, along with running clubs and hearts, to make grand good. The big spade bid does shift the odds a lot, though, to us being able to avoid losing slow rounded suit tricks. I can handle a spade loser if I can fade all the late rounds of clubs and hearts, so my previous argument about 5-or-7 got blown away by the 4♠ call.

Your statement about implied odds is beyond my math understanding but I disagree with the rest of this paragraph. Double, then a new suit at the cheapest level is not forcing. Even if it were, you would never be able to show a 5-5 hand - partner will assume you didn't use Leaping Michaels for a reason. I can cuebid, then bid my suit, eg (2D)-x 2S - 3D 3S - Partner bidding spades repeatedly being the least informative partner action. Well, ok, I guess I am forced to leap to slam here, but at least I know we don't have a 5-4 heart fit. I pay off to partner holding SK, HQxx, whatever, Cxx with clubs 5-1 and trumps 3-2 on the left. I also pay off to partner holding a spade suit that lets me pitch the two low clubs. The point about implied odds is simply that our payoff is a function of the likelihood of getting paid off, times the amount we get paid off if things go the way they need to go to get paid off. This is a common concept in poker. For example, when we consider calling with a draw to something, or more commonly a set of somethings, we need to think not about the current pot size, but about the ultimate pot size under the assumption that we hit one of the somethings we are trying to hit.

I agree we should not expect partner to cooperate. after all he has zero key cards for both of our suits. Why then is 4C better than dble? I can always bid suits forcing after the dble and then bid 5N pick to get to the best fit. It seems to me that if the 4C bidders hit their plan they still cannot get to 7 so the implied odds on 4C are poor. Of course I might be making the opening lead against 2Dx. I expect -4. That might be ok since if partner has a hand to pass he probably does not have the cards for a small slam either. Adam did not give us the form of scoring and vulnerability though. Finally, note that many partner hands produce 5-or-7 situations. In my example hand you need all the features to make 6 too, if you don't have running clubs and the ability to draw trumps in tempo you also have a spade loser unless partner produces the ♠K.

I'm going to start with double. I think this is vastly superior to Leaping Michaels, the latter plan will force us to drive to the 5-level to get our values across. This hand is not as good as it looks, we have 4, maybe 5 potential losers and at least one suit rounded suit rates to break poorly. Starting with double also has the merit that I am more likely to find out whether partner has 4 hearts or 3. There's a huge difference on this hand, a 4th trump will let me play to draw trump and throw spades from dummy on the clubs (xxx, Qxxx, xxx, Jxx is 7♥). Hopefully I can extract enough information to make a sensible decision later.

I'd vote for 2M = 5M/4+m is not GCC legal. This puts a huge dent in trying to design a MAF Canape strong club system playable in a GCC event. You really need a sensible way to bid 54xx nonreversing hands where the 5-card suit is the higher one.